TexasCHLforum.com

Crossfire wrote:Despite all the historical fiction, the thing that annoys me most is the geographical inaccuracy. How can they be so arrogant as to portray all of Texas as only caprock? When they show a scene of cliffs and canyon with not a tree in sight and label it "Nacogdoches", that is just maddening!

The wife and I gave that major eye rolls.

Crossfire wrote:Despite all the historical fiction, the thing that annoys me most is the geographical inaccuracy. How can they be so arrogant as to portray all of Texas as only caprock? When they show a scene of cliffs and canyon with not a tree in sight and label it "Nacogdoches", that is just maddening!

This kind of stuff along with the silly poor acting ruined it for us.

BigGuy wrote:

suthdj wrote:Its entertainment folks nothing more watch it for entertainment not fact.

The problem is that it's on the History channel where it is (make that should be) reasonable to assume it is fact. Many will take it that way. The History Channel should make it absolutely clear that this is nothing more than a drama based loosely on an historical event.

As others have pointed out, this channel has long since abandoned historical accuracy.

They do in the begining they tell you it is a dramatized version of texas history. Besides it is on TV I trust nothing as fact on TV not even the news to many slants.

I finally gave up
Geography scenes
Yellow rose fiction
poor acting
and a few more things

BigGuy wrote:

suthdj wrote:Its entertainment folks nothing more watch it for entertainment not fact.

The problem is that it's on the History channel where it is (make that should be) reasonable to assume it is fact. Many will take it that way. The History Channel should make it absolutely clear that this is nothing more than a drama based loosely on an historical event.

As others have pointed out, this channel has long since abandoned historical accuracy.

They did. At the very beginning, it says:

The following program is a dramatic interpretation of Texas' fight for Independence.

Any time I see a statement like that, I know it will not be accurate.

I have also laughed at the setting on this show.

They have set San Antonio, Goliad, and Harrisburg as dry, dusty mountainous towns.

I can't wait to see how they set San Jacinto. Probably have a saloon and bluffs in the background!

Why certainly. We've been inflating beautiful Mt. Houston down here for the last month. They needed lots of air, so they had politicians lined up from here to Dallas. Such a shame that the other night it floated out into the Gulf. All that hot air wasted!

Really. If they shot that thing on film, they sure wasted a lot of celluloid.

Pawpaw wrote:

BigGuy wrote:

suthdj wrote:Its entertainment folks nothing more watch it for entertainment not fact.

The problem is that it's on the History channel where it is (make that should be) reasonable to assume it is fact. Many will take it that way. The History Channel should make it absolutely clear that this is nothing more than a drama based loosely on an historical event.

As others have pointed out, this channel has long since abandoned historical accuracy.

They did. At the very beginning, it says:

The following program is a dramatic interpretation of Texas' fight for Independence.

Any time I see a statement like that, I know it will not be accurate.

I missed that. I must admit, I enjoy "Vikings." But in my mind, the History Channel has lost any credibility as a source of information. They are now pushing entertainment, not history.

The sad part is that they could have portrayed the true history of Texas and came out with a great production . Colonization , Alamo , war of independence , Texas Rangers , Texas Navy ,war with the Comanche , buffalo hunters , joining the union ,army posts , Austin , Huston , gunfighters , Cowboys , trail drives , Civil War , reconstruction , banditos , on and on . Our state has an amazing history .

Anytime the History Channel, H2, or Military History Channel televises ANY movie, docudrama, mini-series, etc, it should be viewed as entertainment ONLY. Sure it's disappointing, but it's for entertainment folks. Not education.

Those 3 are my favorite channels to watch. I watched a little of the 2nd episode, and kind of tuned out when the geographical setting was nowhere near accurate. So I give it a thumbs down.

Given the fact that it's not at all historically or geographically accurate, I'd say a national network channel doing ANOTHER film about our great State can't be all bad.

If you've never read a good history of Texas, I highly recommend this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Star-History ... 0306809427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can get it in a Kindle version if you prefer electronics.

BigGuy wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

BigGuy wrote:

suthdj wrote:Its entertainment folks nothing more watch it for entertainment not fact.

The problem is that it's on the History channel where it is (make that should be) reasonable to assume it is fact. Many will take it that way. The History Channel should make it absolutely clear that this is nothing more than a drama based loosely on an historical event.

As others have pointed out, this channel has long since abandoned historical accuracy.

They did. At the very beginning, it says:

The following program is a dramatic interpretation of Texas' fight for Independence.

Any time I see a statement like that, I know it will not be accurate.

I missed that. I must admit, I enjoy "Vikings." But in my mind, the History Channel has lost any credibility as a source of information. They are now pushing entertainment, not history.

True, but I think by making it entertaining it make people curious and hopefully learn the truth.

Was it just me, Direct TV, or what? This past week and weekend this fictional series was being run under two or three different names. The first episode only recorded for one hour of the two hours programmed because they broke it into two pieces with the same name. Then there were two little pieces, each 6 minutes in length, then the 2nd part recorded for 2 hours. Unless they plan on continuing at a later date, it just stopped at the part where Houston went to Goliad. Was it just pulled or what?

BigGuy wrote:

suthdj wrote:Its entertainment folks nothing more watch it for entertainment not fact.

The problem is that it's on the History channel where it is (make that should be) reasonable to assume it is fact. Many will take it that way. The History Channel should make it absolutely clear that this is nothing more than a drama based loosely on an historical event.

As others have pointed out, this channel has long since abandoned historical accuracy.

The History Channel did make it clear. At least, that's the way I saw the disclaimer that came on at the beginning of the two episodes I've seen.

Anyone that thinks they can get a full history lesson by watching a mini-series is deluded.

They need to follow up by fact checking on the internet, of course!! /sarcasm

The real issue is not fact or fantasy in the series, it is how The History Channel presents itself as a purveyor of actual history:

http://www.history.com/shows/texas-risi ... rians-view" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HC seems to think the Texas Revolution was mainly about slavery and the rise of The Texas Rangers, according to their website, as told by Texas Rising. There are many excellent books by real historians that factually document both far better. The History Channel is actually an honest historians worst nightmare. My opinion.